Supreme Court may holster NY gun law

Over the years, people with handgun "carry permits" in New York City were perceived to be celebrities, those carrying large sums of money, retired law enforcement, even those with political connections, as the licenses from the NYPD are extremely difficult to come by.

Now the US Supreme Court could strike down the state's restrictive gun law, although the justices also have raised concerns about whether restrictions should continue in places such as subways, bars and stadiums.

The city has seen a much-publicized rise in gun violence amid the COVID-19 pandemic, with television networks showing footage of shootouts on city streets. The guns used in those crimes though are rarely licensed and often are obtained out of state, in areas with far more lenient gun laws.

There have been 1,324 shootings across the city's five boroughs so far this year, compared with the 1,299 reported over the same 10 months last year, both numbers more than double the rate before the pandemic.

There were 382 gun arrests in October, bringing the number in 2021 to 3,808 — a 13.9 percent increase compared to 3,343 in the same 10 months in 2020.

Mayor-elect Eric Adams, who has said he will restore an undercover NYPD anti-gun unit that was disbanded during Mayor Bill de Blasio's second term, said of the court challenge that "we need fewer people carrying guns, not more".

"If this law is eliminated in New York, police departments in New York City and across the state will have to immediately prepare for more shootings and need additional resources to prevent them," said Adams, a former NYPD captain.

The top court, expected to rule on the case next June, will decide whether the law runs afoul of the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms".

Rulings by the court in 2008 and 2010 established a nationwide right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

During two hours of arguments Nov 3, conservative justices, who are a 6-3 majority, suggested New York's law and perhaps others like it in several other states are too stringent.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked why a person who wants to carry a gun in public for self-defense has to display a special need to do so.

"The idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights," he said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett told Paul Clement, attorney for the two gun owners who brought the case, that there's a history of states outlawing guns in "sensitive places. Can't we just say Times Square on New Year's Eve is a sensitive place … people are on top of each other."

"We don't have to answer all the sensitive places questions in this case, some of which will be challenging no doubt, is that accurate?" Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Clement, who agreed.

The law, known as the Sullivan Act, was enacted statewide in 1911 following a spree of shootings in New York City. It is considered a "may issue" law, meaning the police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a "shall issue" act, in which authorities must give a concealed-handgun license to anyone who meats specific criteria, such as a background check.

In most of the US, gun owners can legally carry their weapons in public. The Biden administration, which is urging the justices to uphold New York's law, says California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island all have similar laws that could be affected by the court's decision.

Is the license "supposed to say you can carry a concealed gun around the streets or the town or outside just for fun? I mean, they are dangerous, guns," Justice Stephen Breyer asked.

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether New York's law would allow a person to get a carry license if they get off work late and have to travel through a high-crime area to get to a subway or bus.

New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood, arguing for the state, said such a person has no more specific need for a weapon than the general public does.

"But how is that consistent with the core right to self-defense, which is protected by the Second Amendment?" Alito asked. He said there are many people with illegal guns "walking around the streets" in New York, while "the ordinary, hard-working, law-abiding people I mentioned, no they can't be armed?"

Justice Alito wondered why only "celebrities, state judges and retired police officers" should be able to carry concealed guns.

Underwood said that there's no right "to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places".

Gun-rights groups, meanwhile, say the risk of a confrontation is why they have a right to be armed.

"In 43 states, people are able to do that," Clement said, adding, "it doesn't mean that those 43 states have any more problems with violent crimes".

The challenge eventually made it to the high court after two upstate New York men who applied for state permits to carry a concealed gun in public and were denied. Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, along with the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued in federal court.

"Why isn't it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to be able to defend myself?" Justice Kavanaugh asked.

"If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves, that's implicated when you're in a high-crime area. It's not implicated when you're out in the woods," Chief Justice Roberts said. "How many muggings take place in the forest?"

"It seems completely intuitive that there should be different gun regimes in New York than in Wyoming," Justice Elena Kagan said.

Justice Breyer bolstered that argument: "The difference, of course, you have a concealed weapon to go hunting. You're out with an intent to shoot, say, a deer or a rabbit, which has its problems. But here, when you have a self-defense just for whatever you want to carry a concealed weapon, you go shooting it around and somebody gets killed."

Underwood said that allowing a proliferation of firearms in the subway "terrifies a great many people".

Breyer raised hypothetical situations in which even people of "good moral character", including drunken sports fans at stadiums, could "end up dead". He challenged Clement on what the court should do to avoid "a kind of gun-related chaos".

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this story.